Yeah, I agree with Admiral, Bob.
No one's expecting them to stop global warming, end homelessness, and solve all those Iraq-related problems in just a few years, but I don't think we need to go the other extreme and take the bleak view you've adopted.
I agree, power DOES corrupt, but I also think the Democrats are aware of this, and they'll be on their toes noticing any sign of getting off-track in whatever way.
I think you should have more faith in them- isn't it already a miracle that they've gotten elected at all? To me, this shows that things are changing. I have high hopes _________________peace-monger

1. If the ruling party losses majority (majority implies two-thirds majority in the Lower House-) in mid term polls, in my country, it ceases to be the ruling party. The Prime Minister has to seek a vote of confidence (from atleast two-third members). Otherwise the leader of the majority party becomes the Prime Minister. If no party has an absolute majority, they would ally or the Lok Sabha is dissolved and we have fresh elections in the worst situation.
I suppose then, it's different in the USA. A president continues even if his party loses majority midterm??

Yes, the president is elected to a four-year term, no matter who else is in the Senate or House of Representatives. Bush is there through 2008.

A difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is illustrated by the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush. When Clinton left office, the economy had been rollicking for years and there was a budget surplus of something over $500 billion (if my memory is accurate). In six years, Bush has turned it into a $500 billion deficit, with a floundering economy that is starting to revive. After millions of jobs were lost, some of those people have found jobs, so Bush pats himself on the back by claiming that his administration has created new jobs. Pitiful._________________You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb

Some have analysed that the slowing economy is a ripple effect of 9/11 attacks???

Maybe VERY, VERY indirectly.
One attack (although it was large) does not amount to a $500 billion dollar deficit, just like that. BUT, after the attack, Bush decided to be the "hero" and go to war with another country over there, and the money spent on that war led to the deficit (I'm assuming).
But an attack by Al-Qaeda did not mean AT ALL that Bush had to go to war in Iraq, so...
You get the picture._________________peace-monger

I suspect Al Quaeda will be cheering the election results as heartily as some of you.
They knew that if they could persevere until there was a change of government, they were likely to see US troops withdrawn from various parts of the world.
Rumsfeld's "resignation" would be seen as a victory for them, too.

But the situation with Bush is going to get worse rapidly step by step. If the democrats could only let the deterioration stop or go a bit slower, it would be something good.

Let's hope so. Still, it is disillusioning to know that we are just choosing the lesser of two evils. Remembering how corrupt the Democrats were when they controlled congress prior to 1994, and seeing how quickly the Republicans became corrupt when they took power, I don't have a lot of faith in the new congress and their ability to stay out of trouble or do anything more than kick Bush's ego in the 'nads (which needs to be done often)._________________"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper

One attack (although it was large) does not amount to a $500 billion dollar deficit, just like that. BUT, after the attack, Bush decided to be the "hero" and go to war with another country over there, and the money spent on that war led to the deficit (I'm assuming).

Yes, war is a significant portion, but AC is also right about the "ripple" effect. One should not overlook the money spent on beefing up national security, establishing homeland security, reorganizing transportation security, etc. Although their effectiveness is debatable, those are still money spent to ensure the safety and security of the people in the US like you and me. It is also unfortunate that most won't usually see the success of security because a thwarted attack looks just like no attack at all, and one would see things about security in the news only if it fails.

flying_pig319 wrote:

But an attack by Al-Qaeda did not mean AT ALL that Bush had to go to war in Iraq, so...

Nope. But it does show that something's wrong with the US national security and we are extremely vulnerable even if we are not provocative. It also shows that the world has changed, and that we have been living under constant threat-alert since the attack. I think the 9/11 attack has put the US in a position where there's no turning back. Whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans in power, I don't think either group can afford to scale back on security. The terrorists are achieving their goal of making everyone a victim of fear. One thing that makes the US different is that the government is powerful enough challenge terrorism in order to protect and defend the freedom of its people and their way of life.

Correct. As part of the established checks and balances system, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all function independently with power and authority established in the Constitution. And for the most part it works pretty well for us, especially when there is divided government (one party controls the legislature, the other party controls the executive) since each will cancel out the excesses of the other.

Quote:

2. Why is it such a big deal if the democrats have got elected? If you look at the last 12 terms, both the Republicans and the democrats have been elected six times each.

Each party has a different philosophy with regards to foreign affairs, taxation, domestic federal law regulation, national security, and government spending. Depending on who is in charge at the time, it could affect tax rates, government spending (which can affect lending interest rates if the government has to borrow more money), fuel prices, and (of importance to your country) trade tariffs._________________"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper

One attack (although it was large) does not amount to a $500 billion dollar deficit, just like that. BUT, after the attack, Bush decided to be the "hero" and go to war with another country over there, and the money spent on that war led to the deficit (I'm assuming).

Yes, war is a significant portion, but AC is also right about the "ripple" effect. One should not overlook the money spent on beefing up national security, establishing homeland security, reorganizing transportation security, etc. Although their effectiveness is debatable, those are still money spent to ensure the safety and security of the people in the US like you and me. It is also unfortunate that most won't usually see the success of security because a thwarted attack looks just like no attack at all, and one would see things about security in the news only if it fails.

I still would say that's an indirect effect of 9/11 though, not a direct one.
And yeah, it is interesting that something good like security came from something bad like the 9/11 attack.

BourneNOIR wrote:

flying_pig319 wrote:

But an attack by Al-Qaeda did not mean AT ALL that Bush had to go to war in Iraq, so...

Nope. But it does show that something's wrong with the US national security and we are extremely vulnerable even if we are not provocative. It also shows that the world has changed, and that we have been living under constant threat-alert since the attack. I think the 9/11 attack has put the US in a position where there's no turning back. Whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans in power, I don't think either group can afford to scale back on security. The terrorists are achieving their goal of making everyone a victim of fear. One thing that makes the US different is that the government is powerful enough challenge terrorism in order to protect and defend the freedom of its people and their way of life.

I think Bush and the Democrats will respond to the attacks differently, though. They will both have fear, yes, but Bush will see it as an opportunity to be the hero, while the Democrats will see it as an indication that they're not protecting their country well enough. An attack for Bush is a very different thing than an attack is for someone more... sane.
And I definitely see what you're saying about the US's unique role- we're far more powerful than most (if not all) other governments out there, and I wish we used this power more wisely (i.e., not just to boost Bush's ego, but to help ourselves as well as other nations)._________________peace-monger

I still would say that's an indirect effect of 9/11 though, not a direct one.
And yeah, it is interesting that something good like security came from something bad like the 9/11 attack.

Yep, in that sense you're right. It's "good" that we have tighter security... but kinda scary to be in a heightened state of security alert all the time

flying_pig319 wrote:

I think Bush and the Democrats will respond to the attacks differently, though. They will both have fear, yes, but Bush will see it as an opportunity to be the hero, while the Democrats will see it as an indication that they're not protecting their country well enough. An attack for Bush is a very different thing than an attack is for someone more... sane.

Yep, different people will respond differently. However, not all Democrats will take the optimum course of action after realizing that the previous administration's national security policy was not enough to prevent such an attack. While I agree that there are Democrats who probably would've done a much better job and that Bush's ego played an important part in his political agenda, I just think that you're over-generalizing when you seem to imply that all Democrats will do righteous deeds.

I think Bush and the Democrats will respond to the attacks differently, though. They will both have fear, yes, but Bush will see it as an opportunity to be the hero, while the Democrats will see it as an indication that they're not protecting their country well enough. An attack for Bush is a very different thing than an attack is for someone more... sane.

Yep, different people will respond differently. However, not all Democrats will take the optimum course of action after realizing that the previous administration's national security policy was not enough to prevent such an attack. While I agree that there are Democrats who probably would've done a much better job and that Bush's ego played an important part in his political agenda, I just think that you're over-generalizing when you seem to imply that all Democrats will do righteous deeds.

You're right-- I was definitely over-generalizing.
Let me reprhase: The sterotype of what a Democrat is vs. the stereotype of what a Republican is. I know that many Republicans are good people, and that many Democrats are ego-boosting people.
Icky post._________________peace-monger

My hunch is that 9/11 hit the economy of not only the USA, but also that of many other countries directly or indirectly related to the USA. It could’ve even spoken on India’s economy and it sure did. There is always a perceived threat in these countries and they have to spend a helluva lot on security.
USA was not used to foreign invasion and a direct attack on the symbol of its economic might, the WTC, has to but send severe shocks to the economy. I read that the attack had an effect on everything from immigration, software, to apparel manufacturing, department stores, cargo, etc. The decline in air-travel resulted in loss for airlines, hotels, truckers, food manufacturers, limousine services etc.

A bit of googling reveals:

Quote:

XL Capital Ltd claims related to the September 11 attack on the US is approximately $1.8 billion. [The CEO] stated: "Although we are confident about our prospects, the third quarter of 2001 has been the worst in the history of the property and casualty insurance industry." (PR Newswire)

Quote:

The terrorist attack on the WTC could cost NYC from $90 billion to as much as $105 billion over the next two years, making it the costliest disaster in the nation's history, state officials said. (The Daily Insurance Journal)

Quote:

Citing a slow economy and weak demand, Bell South Corp today said it plans to eliminate 1,200 non-management jobs in early 2002, bringing to 4,200 the number of layoffs it has announced in less than two months... Bell South on Oct 18 announced the elimination of 3,000 jobs... Qwest Communications said Thursday it was pink-slipping 7,000 employees by mid 2002, on top of 4,000 job cuts announced in September. (The Washington Post, December 14)

The temporary recession in the software field recently is another reason for the slump, I understand. I don't know if it's true, but there was a talk in the software circles, that it was due to Bill Gates' manipulation of the industry in order to stay in monopoly.